I don't want to repeat my intercepted, yet distributed remarks on a
moderated list: of Saturday, January 04, 2003 12:02 PM - with my experiences
on a dozen lists (most of them, but not all having survived attempts of
being moderated).
(Subject: Re: A moderated everything-list substitute )

Of course the 'founders' may change the rules, probably the "name" as well,
to something like "everything within mathematically advanced computer based
new physics theories" or similar for a restricted participation of an
exclusive gang, duly moderated to leave out all "just thinking"
It is hard to find a restricted list exactly fashioned to one's "real"
narrow interest without indulging in intelligent minds sometimes go beyond
or aside. People usually 'lurk' on lists of a broader curriculum, apply
their delete button and enjoy the posts they are interested in.

When I was asked by friends during my past decade of particpation on this
list, how I would characterize it, I mumbled something like: a bunch of
fresh young minds, most of them of a heretic physicist persuasion, using
their capabilities well beyond the conventional sci-fi thinking. It is like
a breeze of fresh air.
I survived the occasionally emerging conventional and prejudiced  posts of
more rigid-minded 'physics professors' by selective reading (which with my
daily ~100 emails is a necessary measure for sanity, anyway).

I read with surprize in Russell's remark that "free will" and
"consciousness" are excluded from subjects. I fought against these (and some
more) concepts for more than a decade on several lists and would have liked
a lot to know of such protection earlier.

I hope to have fun with this list in the future and wish us all the best.

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: A moderated everything-list substitute (was: Re: Provably
exponential time algorithms)

> Another problem with moderation is how to decide the criteria for
> moderation. The FOR list (which is a moderated list covering a similar
> range of topics) has a mandate to be accessible to the layperson,
> which is interpreted by the moderator as "No mathematics allowed".
> The trouble is that is a little difficult to discuss these topics in a
> meaningful way without mathematics.
> On the other hand, a "Best of" selection might be kind of handy. I'm
> having trouble digesting the current output of the everything list,
> even after automatically deleting entries with the words
> "consciousness" and "free will" in the subjects :).
> Cheers
> Wei Dai wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:48:08PM +0100, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> > > Actually, one doesn't have to dig very deep in the archive. This very
> > > is an example of an off topic irrelevant discussion. Irrelevant,
> > > there are so few other postings that should not have appeared on this
> >
> > Perhaps instead of creating a seperate moderated list, someone can offer
> > the service of selecting high quality posts from this list and reposting
> > it - a "best of everything" list. This may serve people who find this
> > too high volume. The authors of the papers cited in the original
> > invitation, Bostrom, Schmidhuber, and Tegmark, all subscribe to the list
> > but probably no longer follow it closely because of the volume.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish            Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> Australia            [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Room 2075, Red Centre
>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to